If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please use the contact us link at the bottom of the page for issues, complaints, and/or questions. Contacting any other persons within the AVfM Organization will not garner the "trickle down effect" nor will it get you a quicker response.
Al

NOTICE:
The views expressed by the members of this forum DO NOT necessarily reflect the views of A Voice for Men (AVFM), its owner, or its management.

I
If they are equal, they could be either "identical" or "complementary"
IA: Equal but complementary = Norwegian Equality Paradox = more liberty means more differentiation
IB: Equal and identical = justice consists in equal numerical representation and presence everywhere in society.

II
If the sexes are not equal, they could be either "inferior/superior" or "complementary"
IIA: Unequal but complementary = Traditionalist social values = prescribed roles for men and women
IIB: Unequal and "inferior/superior" = Patriarchy, if men have power, Matriarchy, if women have power.

Corollaries:
Equality/identity:
Members of the same species, with roughly the same genetic make-up
Intra-sex variation is bigger than inter-sex variation
(Cultural adaptation: machinery eliminates gender dimorphism based differences.)

IA/IIA: The difference between these two positions is that when women are offered the opportunity of education and work participation, they typically choose fields that are "administrative" rather than "productive", iow. fields with a content that lies close to the content of traditionalist social values; the difference is that women often want to have a career outside the home. The reason for this could be partially economic (necessity), partially existential (choice, "meaningful life") and/or partially cultural (low status of SAMs).

IB and IIB are the two positions which are the farthest apart.
Modereate equalists will presume IIA to be a still influential historical position, shaping reality. The moderates will divide into two camps depending on whether they argue for equality of opportunity (IA) or equality of outcome (IB) as a solution.
Radical equalists will presume IB to be the position closest to the ideal and IIB to be the position closest to reality.
Extreme genderists assume IIB to be both ideal and real, either
- supporting the status quo if they think that the right sex is holding power
- opposing the status quo if they think that the wrong sex is holding power.

Comment

... for those who aren't tired of it yet. The following takes no position pro or con marxism itself, it is merely one attempt to clarify the relationship between marxism and feminism.

The "feminist marxist" claim is that economic inequality is the root of social evil, including sexism, and would therefore work for a marxist program of eradicating economic inequality, thereby , incidentally, eradicating sexism.

The "marxist feminist" claim is that sexism is the root of social evil, including economic inequality, and would therefore work for a women's rights program of eradicating sexism, thereby , incidentally, eradicating economic inequality.

IMO the relationship that the latter have with marxism is that because women are even mentioned as also suffering social evils as a result of economic inequality, this justifies feminists in a) focusing on women' issues and b) claiming this to be marxist. No feminists, including the "marxist feminists", work for a program that would realize any political goal declared by traditional marxism; there is simply no overlap.

Comment

first wave feminism was a movement to redress inequalities actually manifest in various laws and practices regarding civil rights, like voting, education and economy.

Second wave feminism was a break-out from women's traditional family role, enabled by economic affluence, a peaceful society and, above all, female control over reproduction due to the Pill. Second wave feminism saw a massive influx of female labour in the labour market.

Third wave feminsim is a break-out from women's new role in the labour market. Having sampled the joys of salaried labour, third wave feminists now want to redistribute the access to top positions, easy labour, the choice to be a SAHM, welfare benefits and everything else which places women outside the centre of the traditional labour market: waged work.

Comment

I'd be interested in knowing how you Atheists deal with Pascal's Wager.

>>"and in other news, the Judge in the case of AVFM Vs Feminazism ruled today that the creators of 'Gender Equality' are guilty of Intent to Obtain Social Change by Deception. The Feminazi case collapsed just one day into the trial, after a 1st year medical student demonstrated that men are not, in fact, equal to women".<<

Comment

when feminists allege that men are more criminal than women, because they more often break the law, are convicted in court and go to jail,
remember that this is due to society more often criminalizing men's behaviour. If that is not discrimination, what is?

Until you learn to respect other opinions, ie, "the brainwashed" AND have the courage of your own convictions, so as to be able to defend your faith rationally, with serious, valid argument, you will only live in an echo chamber of the infantile.

Is there any reason to discuss the Faith with you? If you aren't even willing to try to understand, I see no point.

To theplummer, I reference Titus 3:9 'But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.'

The notion of 'unbeliever' or 'atheist' is a non-starter as it is a statement of negation, of what one does NOT believe. I find atheists to be the most illogical creatures from the get go with their contradictory self-identification, denying they have beliefs when they clearly do - they just use semantics as a veneer otherwise.

I prefer the term humanist to describe my own views, which puts forth a positive proposition on the question. At the center of every day is an idea that is NOT a deity, such as truth, justice, freedom, etc.

No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
George Mason

To theplummer, I reference Titus 3:9 'But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.'

The notion of 'unbeliever' or 'atheist' is a non-starter as it is a statement of negation, of what one does NOT believe. I find atheists to be the most illogical creatures from the get go with their contradictory self-identification, denying they have beliefs when they clearly do - they just use semantics as a veneer otherwise.

I prefer the term humanist to describe my own views, which puts forth a positive proposition on the question. At the center of every day is an idea that is NOT a deity, such as truth, justice, freedom, etc.

This is a non-believer thread. If you need to do what you do go the believer thread. Move on or I will summarily remove you.

Comment

for those who haven't read it yet - have a look at "The Privileged Sex" by Martin van Creveld.
MvC is a world renowned Israeli writer on military history and theory.
As a theorist, he testified on women in combat.
Many of his conclusions are found in his 2002 book "Men, Women & War: Do Women Belong in the Front Line?".http://www.amazon.com/Men-Women-War-.../dp/0304359599
No prizes for guessing what his findings were.

"Prof. Emeritus Martin van Creveld of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is one of the world's best- known experts on military history and strategy. His interest in women's history and feminism dates back to the early 1990s when he testified in front of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. One of the outcomes of his research in the field is the present volume...."

"... Ever since Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique back in 1963, all of us have been told that women are discriminated against, oppressed, exploited, and abused by men. The barrage of accusations is intense, relentless, and seems to have neither beginning nor end. But are the charges true? Do women really have a worse time of it than men? This volume, one of the very few in any language, takes on these questions head on. Roaming far and wide, it examines many aspects of the problem as it has presented itself from the time of ancient Egypt right down to today’s most advanced Western societies. To anyone accustomed to the tsunami of feminist claims and complaints, the answers will come as a surprise. ..."

Not.

Full of intersting factoid tid-bits: who knew that today, globally, men spend twice as much of their total lives working as women do, and over a lifetime, career women work 40% less than men?
Or that in e.g. Sweden, the society which has done most to equalise the gender roles, women still choose easier jobs, and although women have more social benefits, Swedish men pay more taxes – 61% of taxes are paid by men as against only 38% paid by women?
Pay Gap, anyone? Double Burden, anyone?

Comment

@Manalysis
What is the purpose of this thread? I see you posting many interesting points on feminism that I'd be interested in seeing explored but I suspect they're getting lost in here? Or, at least, I myself have missed them until now. Why not post them as stand-alone threads?

As for a non-believer thread, I get it's contentious, and perhaps started as a, hmm.., slight? But it could be an interesting discourse in itself, God-willing (pun intended). I see the discourse thus far being reduced to anti-religious vs religious and yet there's a whole spectrum in between the black and white, which perhaps most atheists here more aptly fit? It would perhaps be nice to have a space to share/explore the grey, for once.

But I'm confused..

"One doesn't have to operate with great malice to do great harm. The absence of empathy and understanding are sufficient".